Why Evolution is True

[Loudmouth]

I got mixed up on a chart on a site and posted a 4004 b.c. date.

4359 is the date of the flood. So as you can see, one or two trees postdate the flood, but most of them predate the flood as can be expected. But again some of the bristlestone pines have more than one ring in a year:

Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines - creation.com

Why does the Bristlecone pine data correlate with the German white oak data from half way around the world? You also need to explain how these two pieces of data also correlate with the lake varve and ice layer data.

Also, cite the actual scientists who did the work, not lying creationists.

 

[dad]

Creationists and scientists approach new evidence that seems to oppose their ideas in very different ways.

Ha. You were totally wrong and try to chalk it up to being a learning experience!!! What is learned is that you did not really know what you were talking about in the standard model.

Scientists rejoice. They have a new clue to the nature of reality, and they grab onto it and track it down and enlarge their understanding, eventually. They revel in the temporary contradictions.

Great, they seem to have a lot to 'rejoice' about! Let them jump in glee all they like about being wrong as wrong can be!

They base their ideas and understandings on the best possible evidence, and seek new ways to gather new evidence to help them get a better understanding.

They allow cultish criteria only and would not know any new way..ever! Here is their way..'ever learning NEVER able to come to a knowledge of the truth'

Creationists deplore them. They view contrary evidence as an assault on everything they hold dear and seek ways - any way they can - to simply explain them away.

Newsflash: so called assaults based on doubts and dark inspiration are worthless.

Get a grip.

 

[dad]

Why does the Bristlecone pine data correlate with the German white oak data from half way around the world?

Show the correlation.

 

[CabVet]

I got mixed up on a chart on a site and posted a 4004 b.c. date.

4359 is the date of the flood. So as you can see, one or two trees postdate the flood, but most of them predate the flood as can be expected. But again some of the bristlestone pines have more than one ring in a year:

Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines - creation.com

You are confused. 4,004 BC is creation date. But thanks for showing that trees that couldn't survive underwater predate the flood.

 

[Naturalism]

Do not make a claim when you admit having no idea! Think about it.

I was not asserting anything for how life started, I am not making a claim how it started, but we know it started somehow since we're here.

My point initially was that anyone asserting sharpshooter fallacies around astronomical odds is not correctly considering all the numbers for where life could have started. Think about it.

I do not acknowledge that you know the sizes of stars or galaxies, or that everything you think is a star really is! You have a belief system. A few posts back I just showed how silly that was. You predict dwarf galaxies should be randomly placed, in fact they apparently are ANYTHING BUT!

No matter how much you underlined and bolded, this says nothing about the numbers of planets & moons, numbers of stars, & numbers of galaxies nor refutes them.

Evolution must have life to work! Your claim that life should exist and evolution the universe depends on there first having been life! This is not science or fact.

Evolution needs life to exist, yes. But I am not stating life should exist on earth, rather I am stating given the numbers of possible places for life to exist it's not that odd that life exists.

In essence, then you are stating a belief that life is not created but appeared randomly.

It doesn't have to be random/chance, it can be contingent. Again, look at the odds of all the places where life could exist.

That depends on where gravity is. You need a physical environment to have gravity. If there is more than just physical stuff in the universe anywhere, then gravity is not what it is here!

My point was that, contrary to what you stated about randomness, physical forces do not act in a random way. E.g Gravity is not random.

Forget trying to confuse the issue with great unknowns. How about right here on earth? You can't say how life started here! That kills your case something fierce.

What about earth, what is your evidence for how your god created life? I've only asked you 2 or 3 times now.

 

[dad]

I was not asserting anything for how life started, I am not making a claim how it started, but we know it started somehow since we're here.

Yes because to have evolution do anything at all we need life!
By claiming evolved life you are claiming life started and exists.

My point initially was that anyone asserting sharpshooter fallacies around astronomical odds is not correctly considering all the numbers for where life could have started. Think about it.

You are not considering the number is zero for life unless God created it. We see life here, but we do not see any magically appearing life.

No matter how much you underlined and bolded, this says nothing about the numbers of planets & moons, numbers of stars, & numbers of galaxies nor refutes them.

Now matter how boring a text you use, it says nothing about any life anywhere. Time and space need to be the same as here for stars to be as big and far away as your silly standard model garbage claims!

Evolution needs life to exist, yes. But I am not stating life should exist on earth, rather I am stating given the numbers of possible places for life to exist it's not that odd that life exists.

No odds are involved. That is religion...pretending life came by some strange odds! Absurd. Stop preaching.

It doesn't have to be random/chance, it can be contingent. Again, look at the odds of all the places where life could exist.

Foolishness. Contingent? First it has to be alive!

My point was that, contrary to what you stated about randomness, physical forces do not act in a random way. E.g Gravity is not random.

Why would it be? Did I claim life appeared randomly or does abiofoolishness (abiogenesis) claim that??

What about earth, what is your evidence for how your god created life? I've only asked you 2 or 3 times now.

Science is clueless and devoid of evidence of any sort for any cause! The only evidence is the proven word of God. There is no other.

 

[Loudmouth]

Show the correlation.

Why show you facts you will ignore?

 

[dad]

Why show you facts you will ignore?

Because then the lurkers can have a laugh at how religious and pathetic the basis for your claims really is--why else??

 

[PsychoSarah]

Can we have a rule that people not post giant pictures? It makes the text so small and I have a hard time zooming enough with a touch screen

 

[CabVet]

Because then the lurkers can have a laugh at how religious and pathetic the basis for your claims really is--why else??

And another creationist using religion as an insult. Those never cease to amaze me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because then the lurkers can have a laugh at how religious and pathetic the basis for your claims really is--why else??

How is it religious? Explain.

 

[Naturalism]

Yes because to have evolution do anything at all we need life!

True.

By claiming evolved life you are claiming life started and exists.

Well, life started somehow evidently as here we are. We know it evolves based on numerous studies in biology, genetics, geology, etc.

You are not considering the number is zero for life unless God created it.

The number is most certainly not a zero, again, all the billions of galaxies, billions of stars, billions of planets. All of those are all odds of life starting and existing somewhere, how hard is that to comprehend?

If you want to consider a god created life on earth then explain how it created life. What processes were used, what mechanisms?

Time and space need to be the same as here for stars to be as big and far away as your silly standard model garbage claims!

This again, regrettably for you, says nothing to refute the numbers for the galaxies, stars, planets and moons where life could exist.

No odds are involved. That is religion...pretending life came by some strange odds! Absurd. Stop preaching.

Odds must be involved as life can't exist everywhere, only certain conditions are acceptable, whatever they are.

Foolishness. Contingent? First it has to be alive!

Yes, contingent. As in there are countless numbers of planets and moons on which some form of life could have started.

It's like a person playing a billion games of lotto in parallel, over and over. Will most of them be losers? Yes. But the odds of winning (of having sufficient conditions for life to start) are very good.

Science is clueless and devoid of evidence of any sort for any cause!

You're lying...

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak - YouTube

The only evidence is the proven word of God.

Where does it prove how life was created? I missed the part how it explains the details of how a man was made from dirt and a woman from his rib.

 

[createdtoworship]

You are confused. 4,004 BC is creation date. But thanks for showing that trees that couldn't survive underwater predate the flood.

well you never answered my statement about rings that show up multiple times a year due to drought conditions like California's current condition.

 

[CabVet]

well you never answered my statement about rings that show up multiple times a year due to drought conditions like California's current condition.

I will do that as soon as you admit that the flood was 4000 years ago, not 4000 BC.

 

[Loudmouth]

well you never answered my statement about rings that show up multiple times a year due to drought conditions like California's current condition.

You have not cited a scientific source saying that it is a problem for dendrochronology.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why does the Bristlecone pine data correlate with the German white oak data from half way around the world? You also need to explain how these two pieces of data also correlate with the lake varve and ice layer data.

Also, cite the actual scientists who did the work, not lying creationists.

what age is that oak? it's the first time I've heard about it.

varves and ice layers

you are right what do these have to do with it? other than changing the bars they don't apply at all. but we can talk about that after we exhaust our conversation on tree rings.

 

[Loudmouth]

what age is that oak? it's the first time I've heard about it.

You can read about the 10,000 year unbroken Irish oak series in this paper:

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/1555/1559

Pg. 97 to be precise.

 

[createdtoworship]

You can read about the 10,000 year unbroken Irish oak series in this paper:

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/1555/1559

Pg. 97 to be precise.

radio carbon dating is better than some of the others but it still has it's flukes. For example they dated the top of the pyramid older than the bottom of the pyramids in egypt. Unless you have a habit to build pyramids from the top down I would think they got it wrong. carbon 14 dating is innacurate in that it assumed the recay and formation rates both are uniformly the same. but if simply google it you will see they are not alwys uniform.

 

[Dizredux]

radio carbon dating is better than some of the others but it still has it's flukes. For example they dated the top of the pyramid older than the bottom of the pyramids in egypt. Unless you have a habit to build pyramids from the top down I would think they got it wrong. carbon 14 dating is innacurate in that it assumed the recay and formation rayes both are uniformly the same. but if simply google it you will see they are not alwys uniform.

And how was radio carbon dating used to date the stones in the pyramid? Some details would be appropriate here.

 

[CabVet]

what age is that oak?

When was the flood? 4,000 BC or 4,000 years ago? I hope you know that these two things are not the same. And yes, this is important in this context because you already admitted that there are 6,000 year old trees. You even linked to evidence showing it.